2023 (2) TMI 58 - AT - Income Tax

TDS u/s 194C or 194I - account of CAM charges - Commissioner affirmed the action of the AO in holding that CAM charges paid by the Assessee are part of rent, liable for TDS u/s 194-I however, held that if the deductee has paid tax on the CAM charges received from the Assessee, then the Assessee cannot be treated as Assessee in default - HELD THAT - In the instant case it is an admitted fact, as not refuted by the learned DR, that the Assessee has deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act, and the facts are not distinguishable to the facts involved in Yum Restaurants India case 2022 (10) TMI 256 - ITAT DELHI consequently we are inclined to direct the AO to recompute the tax liability accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of TDS under different sections of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of CAM charges for TDS deduction.
3. Verification of tax payment by deductee for CAM charges.
4. Applicability of Section 194-C for CAM charges.
5. Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi involved an appeal by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer had directed the Assessee to pay TDS amounting to Rs. 2,55,745/- under Section 201(1) and interest of Rs. 2,29,478/- under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for CAM charges, while the Assessee argued that TDS should have been deducted under Section 194-C instead of Section 194-I.

The Ld. Commissioner affirmed the AO's decision regarding TDS liability under Section 194-I but stated that if the deductee had paid tax on the CAM charges, the Assessee would not be in default. The Ld. Commissioner directed the AO to verify this by examining the deductee's tax payment status. The Assessee, dissatisfied with this decision, contended that TDS should have been deducted under Section 194-C based on a previous ruling in the case of Yum Restaurants India.

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the facts and the Yum Restaurants India case, concluded that Section 194-C applied to CAM charges. Since the Assessee had already deducted TDS under Section 194-C, the AO was directed to recalculate the tax liability accordingly. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the similarity of facts with the Yum Restaurants India case.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision favored the Assessee, directing the AO to recompute the tax liability based on the applicability of Section 194-C for CAM charges. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistent treatment of TDS deductions and the necessity to verify tax payments by deductees to determine the Assessee's default status accurately.